SHREE PATAN DASHA PORWAD VAISHNAV MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on the alleged non-furnishing of documents, while the assessee claimed to have submitted them. Therefore, the matter was restored for fresh verification and examination by the CIT (Exemption).
What were the facts?
The assessee trust's application for renewal of registration under section 12AB was rejected by the CIT (Exemption) for not furnishing complete documents. The assessee contended that they had complied with the notice and provided the required information.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT (Exemption) properly considered the documents submitted by the assessee before rejecting the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E’ BENCH
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:
The aforesaid appeals, being ITA No. 4698/Mum/2026 and ITA No.4699/Mum/2026 have been filed by the assessee trust against the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned CIT (Exemption), whereby the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB
2 ITA No.4698 & 4699/Mum/2026 Shree Patan Dasha Porwad Vaishnav Mandal and approval under section 80G of the Act came to be rejected.
At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order has been passed primarily on the ground that the application filed in Form No. 10AB was not complete and that all the documents required to accompany the application had not been furnished before the learned CIT (Exemption). Referring to the impugned order, the learned counsel submitted that the learned CIT (Exemption) had issued a notice dated 09.01.2026 calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite documents and details. It was, however, contended that the assessee had duly complied with the said notice and furnished the requisite information vide its reply dated 16.01.2026, a copy whereof has been placed in the paper book at pages 21 to 24. The learned counsel thus submitted that the documents and explanations furnished by the assessee have not been duly considered while adjudicating the application and, therefore, the matter deserves to be restored for fresh examination.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. From a reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the application has been rejected on the premise that the assessee had not furnished the complete set of documents and had failed to comply with the notice
3 ITA No.4698 & 4699/Mum/2026 Shree Patan Dasha Porwad Vaishnav Mandal issued by the learned CIT (Exemption). At the same time, the assessee has placed before us material indicating that a reply dated 16.01.2026 along with supporting documents was furnished in response to the notice dated 09.01.2026. Since the rejection of the application is founded upon the alleged non furnishing of documents and the assessee asserts that the requisite details had in fact been submitted before the learned CIT (Exemption), we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh verification and examination at the end of the learned CIT (Exemption).
Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The learned CIT (Exemption) shall examine the documents and explanations stated to have been furnished by the assessee vide reply dated 16.01.2026 and thereafter decide the applications under section 12AB and section 80G by passing a speaking order after affording adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish such further details as may be called for during the course of the proceedings.
4 ITA No.4698 & 4699/Mum/2026 Shree Patan Dasha Porwad Vaishnav Mandal 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24th June, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 24/06/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//
BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026